Israel Again Accused of Illegally Using White Phosphorus in Lebanon

Israeli forces were accused Tuesday of the war crime of firing white phosphorus artillery munitions over populated areas of southern Lebanon as Israel escalates an assault on its northern neighbor that has killed or wounded thousands of people.

Video footage published on social media and reported by Middle East Eye shows distinctive explosions that appear consistent with the use of white phosphorus rounds over civilian areas of southern Lebanon, including the village of Kfar Kila.

While white phosphorus munitions are not completely prohibited under international law, their use in populated areas is forbidden. White phosphorus round are primarily used to create smokescreens. However, when used as an incendiary weapon, white phosphorus – which ignites on contact with air and burns at nearly 1,500°F (815°C) – can maim and kill by burning flesh straight through to the bone, often causing a slow, agonizing death. Water does not extinguish it.

Keep reading

Little Known Episode in U.S. History Explains Executive War Powers

Within five years of the publishing of The Federalist papers (and four years of the ratification by the states of the Constitution), the co-authors of those seminal and influential essays on American political theory and constitutional interpretation were back at their desks once again writing letters to the editors of newspapers.

This time, however, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton weren’t allies working to  to persuade others to commit to their common constitutional cause, but they were opponents, striving through their letters to reveal each other’s perceived constitutional misdeeds to the American people.

This episode in American history is known as the Pacificus-Helvidius debates, named for the pen names adopted by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively.

In the earliest days of the republic, the precise balance of powers between the legislative and executive branches in the arena of foreign affairs was unsettled. The Constitution, many argued, wasn’t clear on the point and the various views on the matter created controversy.

George Washington issued the Neutrality Proclamation of 1793 after France declared war on Holland and Great Britain. According to Washington’s way of thinking, it was in the best interest of the country to avoid war at all costs and he did not want the belligerents to be unsure of the official American position.

While certainly laudable, some of Washington’s colleagues considered the Neutrality Proclamation to be hostile to the French as it required the United States government to violate a provision of the Treaty of Alliance signed by France and the United States in 1778. Thomas Jefferson was among the most vociferous of the claque calling out Washington for allegedly violating the prior agreement.

Some of the opposition, including Jefferson and James Madison, believed that the advice and consent of the Senate should have been sought before President Washington issued any declaration of the official American position on any topic touching upon foreign affairs.

Alexander Hamilton was one of the first president’s most ardent advocates, however. And that’s where the trouble started.

Just weeks after the Neutrality Proclamation was published, Hamilton wrote a letter defending the document. Then, beginning in June 1793, he wrote an essay almost once a week, under the pen name Pacificus, in support of President Washington, his administration, and his policies.

After the seventh “Pacificus” letter was published on July 27, 1793, Thomas Jefferson wrote a now famous letter to James Madison, pleading, “my dear sir, take up your pen….”

Madison took up his pen and on the 24th of August, 1793, he responded to Hamilton’s “Pacificus” essays, using the pseudonym “Helvidius.”

In the first letter, Madison wrote that the first Pacificus essay “may prove a snare to patriotism” and warned that he (Hamilton) has advocated principles “which strike at the vitals of its constitution.”

Later in the essay, Madison recommended that in all questions concerning the correct conduct of federal officials, Americans must be guided by “our own reason and our own constitution.”

And, in a statement that is as timely now (perhaps more so) than it was then, Madison wrote that the power to declare war is “of a legislative and not an executive nature.”

Keep reading

NATO takes the plunge into the world of venture capital

The NATO Innovation Fund, the “world’s first multi-sovereign venture capital fund,” made its first investments earlier this summer in deep tech companies including British aerospace manufacturing company Space Forge and AI companies ARX Robotics and Fractile.

Modeled like the U.S. intelligence community’s venture capital arm IQT (In-Q-Tel), the fund’s intention is to focus on spurring innovation in areas including biotechnology, AI, space tech, and advanced communications.

As NATO Innovation Fund Board Chairs Klaus Hommels and Fiona Murray described the project’s purview in Fortune in July: “By investing in and adopting emerging dual-use technologies, NATO can leverage the private sector’s innovation power and its transatlantic talent pool, while countering our strategic competitors’ influence and ambitions.”

Keep reading

Disabled refueler exposes fragility of US mission in Middle East

A U.S. Navy oil tanker running aground off the coast of Oman isn’t a huge event. The fact that it is the only tanker to refuel American warships in a Middle East conflict zone, is.

In fact, this only underscores the fragility of the Navy’s logistic systems at a time when the U.S. has chosen to lean in on an aggressive military posture when it may not have the full capacity to do so, and it may or may not be in the national interest for the Navy to be conducting these operations in the first place.

The first is a question for Naval experts, many of whom may not feel comfortable second guessing the mission. So let’s tackle that one first.

The issue: according to a statement by the U.S. Navy, “USNS Big Horn sustained damage while operating at sea in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations overnight on Sept. 23. All crew members are currently safe and U.S. 5th Fleet is assessing the situation.”

The Big Horn is a 33-year-old Kaiser class refueler. This ship is owned by the Navy and is operated by civilian mariners under the U.S. Sealift Command. These ships are responsible for getting jet fuel out to the carrier’s fighter planes and replenishments to the other escort ships at sea — in this case, the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, which has been serving in the Arabian Sea area since August. It includes the flagship carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, the air wing (including 5th generation F-35s) and three destroyers.

It is the only replenisher nearby, making refueling tricky for the strike group, which is busy in the throes of a fight with the Houthis. The Lincoln had been accompanied by the Theodore Roosevelt strike group which had departed the area in mid-September, according to reports.

Sal Mercogliano, in his “What’s Going on With Shipping?” podcast last week laid out where the other refuelers currently assisting other Navy assets are in the world right now: the Mediterranean, Singapore, the Western Pacific, two on the West Coast of the U.S., one on the Southern coast at Norfolk, and a number that are being fixed or ready for decommissioning at various shipyards across the globe. There aren’t many to spare.

“What this means is that the ability of the U.S. Navy to deploy and sustain its battle groups is very precarious,” Mercogliano points out. “So to support U.S. battle groups, whether it’s an amphibious group or a strike group, requires vessels that can go from forward bases, fuel up, and bring the fuel, ammunition, dry cargo out to them.”

“You don’t have a lot of back backup in this and that’s a big problem,” he added, “because if you don’t have backup, when you lose a ship like Big Horn, you’ve got to scramble to fix it.”

Keep reading

What Would World War III Really Look Like? It’s Already Starting…

One of the most common assumptions I come across in the survival-sphere is the idea that the next world war would automatically necessitate global nuclear conflict and a Mad Max-like outcome. In other words, a lot of people assume we aren’t in a world war until the nukes start flying and the survivors are left fighting in soda can armor over an irradiated desert. This is a dangerous misunderstanding for a lot of reasons.

What people are overlooking is the fact that we are ALREADY in the middle of WWIII. They don’t realize it because they’ve based their entire concept of world war on Hollywood fantasy.

There are many ways in which wars are fought. In our current situation WWIII is being waged through proxies like Ukraine and Israel (and maybe Taiwan in the near future). The war is also being fought on the global economic stage using sanctions, inflation and the dumping of the US dollar as the world reserve. To be sure, these situations can easily escalate into something bigger and that is exactly what I suspect they will do. However, planetary nuclear war is the least likely scenario.

Survival and preparedness communities have a tendency to hyper-focus on the obviously Apocalyptic. We talk a lot about EMP strikes and split-second grid down calamities. We talk about solar flares, overnight economic crashes and nuclear holocaust. I think survivalists do this because it acts as a mental exercise – A way to better clarify what the best preparedness solutions are in the majority of cases, including the worst cases.

But as I’ve said for many years, collapse is a process, not an event.

These things happen slowly, and then all at once. If you went back in time ten years ago and warned people that in 2024 the US would be in the middle of a stagflationary crisis with a 30%-50% average price increase on all necessities, they would probably dismiss you as a doom-monger. Well, guess what, that’s exactly what a handful of alternative economists (myself included) were doing well over a decade ago, and we were dismissed over and over again – Welcome to our world.

The reason people refused to believe us is because the danger was not immediately obvious. The economic threat was not hitting them in their wallet yet. Stock markets seemed to be doing fine. The jobs market was still functioning somewhat normally. They could only view economic crisis through the lens of a total collapse. The idea that it would happen incrementally never crossed their minds.

Even today there are still people who argue that everything is fine. The stock market is “fine.” The labor market is “healthy.” If you suggest all is not well, you’re a “chicken little.” This is the incredible danger of having a Hollywood fantasy idea of collapse. We may never get to 100% systemic implosion; but even a 50% collapse is still a survival situation.

The same dynamic goes for WWIII. We must not overlook the dangers right in front of us simply because intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles aren’t crisscrossing the sky.

Keep reading

Did the Abraham Accords Pave the Way for Total War?

The Abraham Accords, the U.S.-sponsored alliance between Israel and several Arab states, were supposed to get the United States out of the Middle East. At least, that’s what many conservative proponents argued.

In 2020, neoconservative writer Michael Doran argued in Tablet magazine that the accords were an agreement to “step up and bear more of the burden so that America can step back.” Two years later, the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Affairs claimed that the accords were allowing Washington “to gradually withdraw from the Middle East to focus its efforts and resources on the Pacific Ocean, the rise of China, and the consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.”

Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) has even made this strategy a large part of his foreign policy pitch. A few months before being nominated as former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Vance told the antiwar Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft that “combining the Abraham Accords approach with the enduring defeat of Hamas” will ensure that “Israel, with the Sunni nations, can actually police their region of the world. That allows us to spend less time and less resources in the Middle East.”

That’s not how former Trump administration official Jared Kushner, a key architect of the accords, sees it. Over the weekend, he posted an essay to social media arguing that the United States should build on the “Abraham Accords breakthrough” by backing an Israeli war in Lebanon, and hinted that the time is ripe for a wider U.S. war. “Iran is now fully exposed,” he wrote, adding that “it’s not only Israel’s fight.”

Of course, the Trump administration has never pretended that the Abraham Accords were meant to allow U.S. disengagement; then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo bragged about unlocking more “defense cooperation.” The Biden administration itself promised a permanent U.S. military commitment to Abraham Accords member Bahrain in order to entice Saudi Arabia to join the alliance.

But Kushner’s essay moves the goalposts from a defensive commitment to an offensive one. It’s now hard to pretend that the vision is anything less than a regime change campaign on the scale that old-fashioned neoconservatives could only dream of.

Kushner wrote his essay in response to the Israeli assassination of Hezbollah commander Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia backed by Iran, had been engaged in a low-grade border war with Israel for the past year. Israel decided to assassinate Nasrallah after he kept demanding an end to the Israeli war in Gaza in exchange for a ceasefire in Lebanon, an Israeli official told NBC.

The Israeli army is now beginning a ground incursion into Lebanon, after the Biden administration reportedly talked Israel out of a full-on ground invasion. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted at even larger plans, calling Nasrallah’s assassination “Operation New Order” and stating that the fall of the Iranian government “will come a lot sooner than people think.”

Nasrallah’s assassination “is significant because Iran is now fully exposed. The reason why their nuclear facilities have not been destroyed, despite weak air defense systems, is because Hezbollah has been a loaded gun pointed at Israel,” Kushner wrote. “The right move now for America would be to tell Israel to finish the job. It’s long overdue. And it’s not only Israel’s fight,” he added.

Kushner added that Iran is the “main issue between Lebanon and Israel” and brought up Hezbollah’s role in killing U.S. Marines in 1983, during the last U.S. military intervention in Lebanon.

Keep reading

Ukraine’s Army Is In Bad Shape, Over Half Of Recruits Survive Just For A Few Days

The Ukrainian army is suffering from a steady decline in the capabilities of its front-line units, according to Polish news outlet Do Rzeczy, citing a report in the London Financial Times that between 50 and 70 percent of recruits survive only a few days on the frontlines.

Soldiers have low motivation and are prone to panic, while losses among trained and experienced units have led to a dependence on conscript units with very limited operational capabilities.

Training standards were reportedly so poor that not all of them knew how to hold a weapon. Furthermore, the depletion of the number of men considered fit to fight means that the average age of recruits now stands at 45.

The report follows a statement by Ukrainian Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi, who was appointed in early February. Syrsky said that recruits were consistently lacking the necessary training for frontline operations. Lamenting the sheer technological superiority of Russian forces, he said that personnel had received just two months of training, although other sources indicated that the training time was much shorter.

Meanwhile, Military Watch Magazine has said that poor training standards in frontline units have repeatedly emerged over the past two years, and back in mid-2023, the Wall Street Journal even reported that the Ukrainian army was recruiting poor men from the countryside, equipping them with Soviet-era rifles and uniforms, and then sending them to the front after just two nights at a base.

When some of the conscripts tried to sign a waiver, citing a lack of proper training, a Ukrainian sergeant replied, “Bakhmut will teach you,” referring to the frontline city that was then the epicenter of the fighting.

One of the conscripts recalled protesting that he had never held a gun before. The Wall Street Journal had written that such poorly trained and equipped men were necessary, as Western-trained and better-equipped brigades would be needed for the upcoming offensive. 

Since the beginning of June 2023, multiple offensives have resulted in extensive losses and further increased Kyiv’s reliance on conscripts.

Keep reading

US and Its Corporate Interests Won’t Leave Iraq Anytime Soon – Analyst

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani indicated in January that he was committed to speeding up negotiations with the US-led international coalition on the final withdrawal of its forces from the country. He confirmed Baghdad’s “steadfast and principled” position that the coalition had already fulfilled its mission.

Don’t expect the US to suddenly leave Iraq “while corporate interests steer American foreign policy, Isa Blumi, an associate professor at the Department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at Stockholm University, told Sputnik.

“I don’t see this happening […] unless there is a serious revolution in Iraq itself or in the larger region that sees the US leave permanently from these strategic and very lucrative arenas for American corporations to make money,” Blumi said, commenting on the ambiguous announcement of a partial drawdown of US forces in Iraq.

The US footprint “remains omnipresent, hegemonic, willing to use enormous violence,” he noted.

The military presence “will be modified” due to the “vulnerability of explicit American presence” to aerial attacks, which might chip away at the dimming aura of US invincibility, the expert underscored.

Since the beginning of the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the bases of the US-led international coalition in Iraq, as well as US troops in Syria, have come under regular attacks, with armed Shiite groups claiming responsibility in Iraq.

Keep reading

US Likely ‘Had a Hand’ in Israel’s Operation to Eliminate Hezbollah’s Leader Nasrallah – Analyst

Iran has condemned the Israeli attack that killed Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, with President Masoud Pezeshkian claiming that the US greenlit the attack and bears partial responsibility for the “war crime.”

It is very likely that the US “had a hand” in Israel’s operation in Beirut that killed Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan NasrallahNikolas Kosmatopoulos, assistant professor of public policy and international affairs at the American University of Beirut, told Sputnik.

“Certainly, there is good reason to believe that there has been diplomatic approval… military, most probably, and intelligence cooperation,” he said.

US interest in an operation targeting Nasrallah “might have to do with the protection of the role and power that Israel projects in the region,” the pundit speculated.

“It is no secret that Israel enjoys bipartisan support in the US Senate and Congress. It is also an important US ally, and carries out its dirty job in the region. It helps the US maintain economic, diplomatic, and political hegemony […] keeps the region in turmoil… It doesn’t allow for the unification of the region, doesn’t allow for the region to cooperate with each other… become a regional power that could endanger the interests of the US and the EU,” he underscored.

Kosmatopoulos pointed out that the military-industrial complexes of the US and Israel “are almost organically entwined, are an extension of each other.”

Keep reading

IDF Reveals Special Operations Activity In Lebanon

More than 700 special operations in which IDF forces spent more than 200 nights in enemy territory in southern Lebanon.

Some of the promotions even lasted 2-3 consecutive days of staying in southern Lebanon.

Many special units of the IDF engaged in these operations.

As part of the operations, the forces entered the Hezbollah tunnels, destroyed weapons in the territory itself, captured and placed explosives, and also removed weapons and intelligence documents to Israeli territory.

In two of the operations over the past few months, our forces were injured – one as a result of exploding traps of our forces, and one as a result of the explosion of an old bomb that was left in the field. Hezbollah did not recognize these operations and there were no encounters or battles with terrorists at all.

The operations were carried out at a distance of up to 2-3 km from the border with Israel in the nearest strip of villages.

Keep reading